News Is Palin considering running?

1. Aug 30, 2011

KingNothing

Recently I was browsing the interwebs, and I got a pop-up that was a simple quiz: all it asked was "Will you vote for Sarah Palin if she runs for president in 2012?".

2. Aug 30, 2011

lisab

Staff Emeritus
Have there been rumors? Constantly! And she's very good at keeping it rolling...it keeps her rolling in the dough.

3. Aug 30, 2011

Staff: Mentor

She's not very popular right now and I don't think anyone thinks she's any more intelligent than she was a few years ago.

4. Aug 30, 2011

turbo

I think Palin wants to be considered a contender because it gives her a chance to pull in bucks with no effort on her part. Hell! Even her unwed-mother daughter can afford luxury housing and a book-deal. McCain was a pox on the US, and he should resign in disgrace after foisting "the Palin" on us. I don't care so much about about the baggage, nor the  clothes that she required, but I do care about the abject ignorance, and her inability to even tell Katy Couric what periodicals she reads. I was mildly surprised that she didn't tell KC "I'll get back to you on that one when I find out what a periodical is". McCain's choice for VP was beyond bad. For an old guy with a history of brushes with cancer to pick such an idiot for VP was stupid at best, and quite dangerous for the country.

5. Aug 30, 2011

mege

If she can be successfully fundraising without actually being a declared candidate, why not, right? Wait until closer to primary season to declare at the last minute and she will be fresher in people's minds.

6. Aug 30, 2011

Staff: Mentor

Palin is a has been, IMO.

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2011/03/11/sarah-palins-favorability-rating-slips-in-new-poll/

7. Aug 31, 2011

jobyts

But she's definitely more intelligent than the people who would vote for her.

8. Aug 31, 2011

phinds

:rofl:

9. Aug 31, 2011

CAC1001

While I do not think her intellectually up to speed in terms of pure knowledge, I have often wondered what a Palin presidency might be like if say she had become president in 2008, and if it really would be all that bad:

1) There would probably have been no stimulus, meaning about $820 billion less debt, or it would have been in the form of structural tax cuts or tax reform of some type, meaning the economy likely would be less hamstrung; there also would likely not be any massive drives towards regulation, and no Obamacare, thus not near the level of uncertainty in the economy that there currently is. 2) There would have been no attempt at closing Guantanomo Bay 3) No attempt at trying to end the military tribunals, and thus Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his cohorts executed via military tribunals 4) No anti-Israel policy, nothing such as suggesting Israel go back to the 1967 borders, instead a likely extremely pro-Israel policy 5) A much more aggressive foreign policy towards Iran over their nuclear program, and possibly a more timid Iran simply out of fears over her possibly trying to be too aggressive 6) A more no-nonsense policy towards Russia (for example, I doubt she would have ended the missile defense technologies placed in Eastern Europe as the Obama administration did) 7) No anti-Boeing NLRB over Boeing wanting to open a plant in South Carolina 8) No ordering the EPA to regulate carbon emissions as a pollutant 9) Possibly an attempt at serious budget reform and talk about the dangers of excessive levels of debt 10) No apologizing to China over the Arizona immigration bill 11) No hesitating for so long on whether to surge into Afghanistan 12) No immediate planned exit from Afghanistan (as she would not be answering to a far-Left base), maybe not from Iraq either 13) Provided the requested number of troops into Afghanistan 14) Democrats' heads exploding if she had attacked Libya than claimed she did not need Congress's approval to keep America involved because the U.S. wasn't actually engaged in conflict there. 15) Lifting the ban on off-shore drilling for oil 16) Said ban lift becoming very criticized upon the BP oil spill occurring unless Palin cracked down on the MMI before lifting the ban (which probably would not have occurred) And so forth. All of the above could be the presidency of a very intellectual Republican president, so I just mean I think Palin's ideology would inadvertently result in an okay presidency overall in many ways if she was president. Last edited: Aug 31, 2011 10. Aug 31, 2011 phinds yes, but not everyone agrees with your implicit assumption that all of these would have been good things, or even that your statements are factually correct ("anti-Israeli" and "1967 borders" do not necessarily go together as you assume they do) 11. Aug 31, 2011 CAC1001 "Anti-Israel' was too strong a phrase, I shouldn't have used that, but just to me it seems as if the President puts much more of the onus on Israel to find solutions for peace as opposed to the Palestinians. Israel is a liberal democracy. Liberal democracies seek peace, not war, unless they feel it is absolutely necessary, and even then, will go out of their way to avoid it. Also I agree that not everyone would consider all those as good things, however I do not think the general public would view it as a terrible presidency either, especially if the economy started turning around. 12. Aug 31, 2011 WhoWee Nice list - a few more: I doubt McCain would have made an apology tour - probably wouldn't have sparked an "Arab-spring" uprising - but that's just my opinion. I'll assume GM would have been allowed to follow the well defined legal procedure in filing their re-organization plan - rather than bailout the union and provide tens of$Billions in tax credits to GM. It's also unlikely thousands of dealer franchises would have been cancelled costing thousands of jobs and $millions in losses to owners. It's also doubtful GM and Chrysler assets would have been sold to China - again, that's my opinion. Frank-Dodd legislation would not be hanging over our heads. I'll also assume the "Fast and Furious" program (sale of guns to Mexican drug gangs) would not have been attempted by the ATF/US Justice Department - which would have saved at least one American life. 13. Aug 31, 2011 phinds Don't fully agree w/ first statement, do fully agree w/ 2nd. I think it's healthy that America show a better balance than we have in the past. BOTH parties need to be coerced to the table, as both seem reluctant to go (Israel less so, but not blameless). 14. Aug 31, 2011 BobG At least wait until the debates are over. Those would definitely be a weak point for her. I think it would be hard to predict what a Palin Presidency would look like. First, you look at the things she displayed some knowledge of while governor of Alaska. These would be the type of issues she'd personally focus on and she could even do well in those areas. After that, her policies would depend completely upon who she picked up on her staff and she'd have only the recommendations of others as a basis for picking her staff. Things such as foreign policy would be run by some unknown group of persons with no way to know who that group would be. If she took the recommendations of someone that had a certain slant to what that person believed to be good foreign policy, then her staff would reflect that unknown person's foreign policy. If she took the recommendations of several people, she could wind up with a high quality staff, but a hodge-podge of philosophies. That's one of those things that could turn out good or bad, depending on how well those people worked together to form some cohesive policy. That's almost exactly what happened in the Bush administration, except those people didn't work so well together, Bush wasn't a strong enough President to control them or to force them to come up with a single cohesive plan, and you had a disjointed, ineffective foreign policy. I think you'd have the same danger with Palin, except in even more areas of policy than you had with Bush. 15. Aug 31, 2011 Ivan Seeking Staff Emeritus Your wild conclusions based on your wild speculation mean nothing. And the fact is, we know what Palin the Governer looked like - she quit when the job was half done. Even some tea partiers I know can't forget that one. http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/08/31/bernstein.obama.recovery/ http://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/documents/End-of-Great-Recession.pdf What are the tax benefits of 3.4% higher GDP and 2.7 million jobs? Stimulus spending has a purpose. Note also that it is the debt to GDP ratio, and not the debt, that really matters. Last edited: Aug 31, 2011 16. Aug 31, 2011 WhoWee I think he wins the argument that$820 Billion not spent is $820 Billion saved. As for stimulus - the President said shovel ready didn't actually mean "shovel ready". On that subject, I just posted a George Soros interview (Speigel) in another thread. The 2008 Obama supporter and liberal financial heavyweight basically said that given the large debt of Government - future spending must add to productivity in order to pay for itself - a slight revision/update of Keynes. 17. Sep 1, 2011 russ_watters Staff: Mentor WhoWee - the claim made is about the delta. Democrats are saying that it doesn't matter that Obama failed to get unemployment to top out at 8% - 10% is still better than 11.5%. But here's the thing: if 9.5% was unacceptably high, requiring a stimulus, why is 10% now a success? Just kidding, 9.5% wasn't really unacceptably high, but 11.5% now is? Dems are just applying arbitrary and movable thresholds to justify the need. How many times do you get to move the goalpoasts? How 'bout if Democrats get to do it once, republicans do too: 11.5% to 10% isn't a big enough drop to be worth the long term cost. 18. Sep 1, 2011 WhoWee Sure - delta hedging. I think the total number of unemployed is roughly 14 million(?) now - to take credit for 2.7 million jobs is - insincere. The problem (IMO) isn't that Government hasn't done enough - it's that Government has done too much and needs to get itself out of the way. We don't need another big spending program or more targeted tax credits - we need to address existing programs and policies. Specifically, remove restrictions on unused$Billions in employer tax credits dating back to Reagan (unused due to targeted demographics), allow \$Trillions parked offshore to be reinvested domestically without tax penalty, pull back the newest EPA and Labor regulations (from the past 2 years), pull back Dodd-Frank and SOX, and allow (energy costs to decrease) more domestic drilling and production. The next item might surprise some - but use the unused stimulus to fund a pilot program to reform welfare - something that combines Government owned (fertile farm) land with a Section 8 relocation to affordable (rent to own) housing (on site) and a large wind/solar project. The program would be structured to provide a ROI and eliminate the need for future welfare subsidy for the participating beneficiaries.

Like Palin or not (as a person, as a female, as a symbol, or intellectually) - these (aside from the re-direction of stimulus) are the types of policies to which she might align herself.

19. Sep 1, 2011

Staff: Mentor

The 'Gitmo Gaffe is of course my favorite Obama mistake/failure because of its clarity/predictability and therefore what it says about the Obama fans who bought it -- and the entertainment value that provides me, but you forgot one of Obama's most important mistakes, particularly because it has the potential to continue to get worse as we get closer to the election. Stated similar to the way you phrased yours:

Palin probably would not have violated federal law and her Constitutional authority to shut down the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repostiory as a political favor, to the detriment of the environment, our energy situation and government scientific credibility.

Now obviously, the things she wouldn't have done are only half of the picture - we also need to consider the things she would have done. But that other half of the picture is much less clear and as Obama showed us, 'I'm not him' is a highly effective campaign strategy. Just as Obama's election was primarily an anti-Bush mandate, denying him a 2nd term would primarily be an anti-Obama mandate. For that reason, the person who runs is less important to the outcome than the effectiveness of that strategy (which also depends largely on the state of the economy at the time of the election). CNN recently had a commentary with a title that said something like 'Perry will be Elected - and We're All Screwed', that had some discussion of the issue - point being, liberal pundits are aware of the problem/risk.

While thoughtful criticisms like the above laundry list are much more intellectual, the thoughtless 'I'm not him' rhetoric plays better and the right-wing soundbyte candidates will be able to take advantage of that. Evo - I wouldn't underestimate the risk of a Palin or Bachman being nominated or even elected, and phinds, not everyone has to agree with the list or the condensed soundbyte: only a plurality of voters have to agree. As a Republican who gets irritated by such candidates, I'm much more cynical about the risk these candidates pose, particularly to the forwarding of a rational conservative ideology.

And while I reaaaaaaly don't want a Palin or Bachman anywhere near the White House (undecided on Perry), I'd probably vote for either of them because they aren't Obama. I think the laundry list includes some serious offenses and potential for serious damage to the country and while the risks of what a Palin or Bachman would do are largely unknown, I do expect that either would be utterly ineffective at leading the country and I'd much prefer standing still (or better yet, letting Boehner run it!) to Obama pushing us far in the wrong direction (/letting Reid run it).

20. Sep 1, 2011

WhoWee

I think the key to a Republican win (Obama defeat) is to keep as many people in the race as long as possible - not attacking each other (or defending the TEA Party or Congressional Republicans) but everyone focused on the failure(s) of Obama from different perspectives. This coupled with an ever-present Palin, Trump, Giuliani, and Huckelbee to comment and attract attacks - will weaken Obama greatly. Last, when a Republican nominee emerges - everyone needs to support them. I think Romney is guaranteed to win if he becomes the spokesperson of all the candidates and is then supported by them. If Rubio isn't chosen as VP - I think Newt would be a very strong addition (if he's willing) - and it should be done soon to make sure he stays the course. Can you imagine Biden trying to debate Newt?:rofl: